Intellectual protectionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intellectual protectionism is a derogatory term for the expansion of copyright, patent, and similar laws. It is often used as an ironic synonym, as it shares initials with "intellectual property", especially by proponents of free culture, who seek to relax restrictions on distribution of digital works.

Calling these laws ‘protectionism’ is an analogy derived from economic protectionism, a practice or policy whereby a country imposes levies or restrictions on imported goods in order to favour domestic markets. The basis for this comparison stems from the argument that:

• The exclusive rights granted by copyright and patent law constitute a government-granted monopoly.
• This monopoly is granted in order to incentivize the production of such works and discoveries, purportedly for the public's benefit.
• There are also public costs in many forms: the making of derivative works is forbidden for the interim;
• The perpetuation and expansion of such exclusive rights is not cost-effective; it benefits a few (esp. large organizations in the content industry) at the expense of the public, and the public domain.

Joseph Stiglitz wrote in the year 2005 that "An intellectual property regime rewards innovators by creating a temporary monopoly power, allowing them to charge far higher prices than they could if there were competition ... faster innovation offsets the enormous costs of such inefficiencies. But it has become increasingly clear that excessively strong or badly formulated intellectual property rights may actually impede innovation – and not just by increasing the price of research." [1]

[edit] External links

• [2] "Intellectual-property rights and wrongs" by Joseph Stiglitz
• [3] Anarchism Triumphant - Eben Moglen's analysis of intellectual works as property
• [4] Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair Intellectual Property Laws, by Greg London
• [5] Human Genome Project - Commercialization and Patenting